From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2007-06-08T21:23:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Gecode/R - Request for syntax feedback

On Jun 8, 2007, at 3:18 AM, Andreas Launila wrote:

> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Andreas Launila wrote:
>>
>>> I have added that syntax to the examples to get a feel for it:
>>> http://gecoder.lokorin.org/dev/wiki/Syntax_test#constrain_. 
>>> 2A_arguments
>>>
>>> It's a bit bulkier at times, but is probably more conventional  
>>> (possibly
>>> easier to get to grips with?).
>>
>> I agree that it lacks the sex appeal of the RSpec approach.   
>> However, it
>> does allow us to avoid wrapping all variables and core class hacking,
>> which I consider big wins.  I would be willing to pay the price.
>>
>
> I'm not really sure that the cost compared to the others is that much
> lower. The following are the changes necessary to make the others work
> as far as I'm aware, please correct me if I'm missing something.
>
> * Custom enums with variables have to be wrapped before use (arrays  
> and
> matrices created through the convenience methods are wrapped there).
> * It becomes harder to create temporary arrays of variables, e.g.  
> [x,y].
> Instead the user has to use variable([x,y]) or something similar (or
> possibly IntVar.array(x,y) if that's better).
>
> Beyond that I can not see anything that requires wrapping or altering
> core classes (or any other non-gecode classes for that matter).

You are probably right.

If we go with the wrapping approach, I just think the most important  
thing is to make sure we are careful to support custom data  
structures as painlessly as possible.

James Edward Gray II